steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[HLin NC]

Tune in to Mike P. segment on the NFL Network on Wednesday night.
I'm 100% sure he'll be covering this one.

[HLin NC]

And I'm 100% sure Mike P. will cover this in his Official Review segment on the NFL Network on Wed. night.

The networks can call the NFL master control center in NY if they really want an answer to a play. With about 30 sec. left, there might not have been time in this particular incident.

Coleman came out with a post-game statement explaining the whole possession-feet-goal line scenario. Mike P. has backed him up so for all intents, the overturn was correct if the boss says so.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

i don't see the need for all these analogies, they are not needed. i'm extremely frustrated because 90% of the people here are trying to be helpful and are good people as far as forums go, but most don't know enough about the nfl, they are high school refs. i just want to know if, as far as the front of the goal line goes, you need possession with 2 feet down, or you need to have the ball inside the end zone also. announcers have been wrong before, but the announcers said it was the latter. if this is true, that call should not have been overturned.

Unless the rule has changed in the last two years (the most recent NFL rule book I have is 2006); it appears that the ball has to be on, above, or behind the opponents goal line while legally in possession of a player in bounds.

Touchdown is defined in 2 - 38
A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is not a touchback (11-2).

Possession is defined in 3-2-7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

[waltjp]

Forget that crap about the aquarium. The ball must break the plane of the goal line.

From Peter King's column, si.com
Steelers continue to survive in tough games - Peter King - SI.com

After the game, Coleman told a pool reporter that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line ... When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane, and then he fell into the field of play. But to have a touchdown, all you have to have is a catch, which is the two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane."


I called NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, who'd spoken with Coleman and the replay assistant following the game. Now, I have to tell you that in my jobs at NBC and Sports Illustrated I have occasion to speak with Pereira nearly every weekend about a play or two from the games, either to clarify something for the Football Night in America show or for my column. Pereira calls them the way he sees them. My experience is that Pereira does not whitewash a bad call. And last night, I asked him point blank if he thought there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. "Yes, I do,'' he said.

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Actually, I think 0% of the posters here are NFL officials.

If you want to know about the NFL you might learn more by contacting Mike Pereira.

you can do that? he will respond to you? or is this just for the nfl network show or something where yours might get picked.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm 100% sure that you knew this when you posted the situation. So why bother?

because you guys are quite helpful. if i did find another forum, there is a good chance it would be like most forums, where people argue like they are 16, angry, and looking for a boost in self esteem. this forum seems to be how all forums should operate. if this were a "normal" forum, most threads would have sentences like "wow, you're a complete idiot. you're a disgrace to football fans everywhere."

Originally Posted by Brett

Unless the rule has changed in the last two years (the most recent NFL rule book I have is 2006); it appears that the ball has to be on, above, or behind the opponents goal line while legally in possession of a player in bounds.

Touchdown is defined in 2 - 38
A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is not a touchback (11-2).

Possession is defined in 3-2-7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

Originally Posted by waltjp

Forget that crap about the aquarium. The ball must break the plane of the goal line.

From Peter King's column, si.com
Steelers continue to survive in tough games - Peter King - SI.com

After the game, Coleman told a pool reporter that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line ... When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane, and then he fell into the field of play. But to have a touchdown, all you have to have is a catch, which is the two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane."


I called NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, who'd spoken with Coleman and the replay assistant following the game. Now, I have to tell you that in my jobs at NBC and Sports Illustrated I have occasion to speak with Pereira nearly every weekend about a play or two from the games, either to clarify something for the Football Night in America show or for my column. Pereira calls them the way he sees them. My experience is that Pereira does not whitewash a bad call. And last night, I asked him point blank if he thought there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. "Yes, I do,'' he said.

good, this is exactly what i thought was the case, the ref just forgot to mention it.

[PackersFTW]

i just watched the halftime show of the cowboys game, and all 4 guys said absolutely no way should that have been overturned. they said that calling those replays "indisputable evidence" is a joke. however, they said had the play been called a touchdown on the field, they probably would have stayed with that also. so basically, everybody but steelers fan seem to agree that those replays don't show anything. i personally am about 60-80% sure that the ball didn't cross the goal line, but again, that means if i were the ref i would stay with the call on the field regardless of what it was.

[waltjp]

I didn't think there was enough there to show that the ball was in the end zone but I will concede that it was very close. The cause of my confusion was the explanation given by Coleman and his lack of stating that he concluded that the ball had broken the plane while in player possession.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm 100% sure that you knew this when you posted the situation. So why bother?

Because fanboys tend to get emotional.

[Suudy]

[QUOTE=PackersFTW;558453]

Originally Posted by Suudy

i don't understand what you mean here.

How many times do we say players (NCAA and NFL) attempt to keep a punt from going into the EZ that try to keep both feet in the field of play. In NFHS (and I think NCAA, you TX guys can confirm) it doesn't matter where you are in the field (note: OB is different), only where the ball is. However, those guys who try so hard to keep both feet out of the EZ when batting must learn it somewhere.

Is this just a common misconception that coaches and players have?

Or does the NFL have a rule related to where the player is located when batting a kicked ball?

Just a curiosity.

However, this situation is obviously not related to this, since we appear to have some confirmation from the NFL that the ball broke the plane in player possession.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I didn't think there was enough there to show that the ball was in the end zone but I will concede that it was very close. The cause of my confusion was the explanation given by Coleman and his lack of stating that he concluded that the ball had broken the plane while in player possession.

I agree with the first sentence. I knew the rule, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to the explanation.

I don't like the precedent that this play sets for what counts as "indisputable visual evidence."

[With_Two_Flakes]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

an inch of the tip of the ball did cross the goal line, BUT it was not in the receivers possession at that time. there is no way you can say it absolutely crossed the goal line while in his possession.

My bad! It wasn't the Steelers-Ravens I saw here in the UK, it was Cowboys-Giants.

Cant comment on the catch-nocatch in the Steelers-Ravens game.

[wwcfoa43]

[QUOTE=Suudy;558559]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

How many times do we say players (NCAA and NFL) attempt to keep a punt from going into the EZ that try to keep both feet in the field of play. In NFHS (and I think NCAA, you TX guys can confirm) it doesn't matter where you are in the field (note: OB is different), only where the ball is. However, those guys who try so hard to keep both feet out of the EZ when batting must learn it somewhere.

Is this just a common misconception that coaches and players have?

Or does the NFL have a rule related to where the player is located when batting a kicked ball?

Just a curiosity.

However, this situation is obviously not related to this, since we appear to have some confirmation from the NFL that the ball broke the plane in player possession.

In the NFL on scrimmage kicks, if the player's body contacts the end zone while he is recovering or catching a punt, it is a touchback, even if the ball was not in the end zone.

However, this has absolutely nothing to do with scoring a touchdown in which the ball MUST be in the end zone.

[JugglingReferee]

wwcfoa43 is correct. This is why you see the player tip-toeing along the ¼-yard line right near the goal line - so that "when the ball gets there", they are not in the EZ.

Players can re-establish themselves as in the FOP in they were once in the EZ.

[Forksref]

I think a lot of fans think that the ball has to cross over the entire line, not just the front edge of the line for a TD. I think the replay showed that the ball broke the plane, which is the front edge of the white line. I wonder if the networks or the NFL always have a camera looking down the GL because it seemed to be a perfect angle.

The NFL has had a lot of interesting plays this year.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Forksref

I think a lot of fans think that the ball has to cross over the entire line, not just the front edge of the line for a TD. I think the replay showed that the ball broke the plane, which is the front edge of the white line. I wonder if the networks or the NFL always have a camera looking down the GL because it seemed to be a perfect angle.

The NFL has had a lot of interesting plays this year.

This is the most sensible comment made by any of the participants in the game:


Ravens' Coach John Harbaugh:

"Our guys are men," he said yesterday. "They're strong guys, and they realize that it's our job not to put the officials in a situation to have to make that call. If we do our job better and finish in crunch time, it won't even be an issue. That's the way we look at it as a football team. We don't need the officials' help to win a football game. That's what good football teams do."